“Wine-ing” about FDA Involvement in Regulating Alcohol Labels

This case caught our eye for a few reasons, none of which directly relates to the business activities of most of our blog readers but may relate to their happy-hours activities. As most know, FDA regulates foods, including beverages, but Congress delegated most of the authority to regulate alcoholic beverages to other federal agencies. Nevertheless, FDA is more involved than you would think – recent litigation illuminates the close relationship FDA holds with those regulatory agencies.

In a cleverly drafted opinion from Judge Boasberg (D.D.C.), in which the court pours alcohol humor throughout (e.g., “Whichever way the Court tilts the wineglass, Bellion’s vintage is wanting,” “Not so fast, Plaintiffs say – the Court’s methodology is corked.”), the question was whether the plaintiffs could make certain health claims on labels of its vodka products. Plaintiffs, Bellion Spirits and Chigurupati Technologies, were manufacturers of vodka infused with a proprietary compound called NTX. Plaintiffs sought to advertise their vodka as having benefits associated with NTX, claiming that NTX could help protect against, or reduce, damage to DNA caused by the alcohol.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), an agency under the Department of Treasury, requires mandatory pre-approval for any health claims made on alcohol beverage labels. Bellion petitioned TTB for approval of these health claims, and TTB determined that the claims were unsubstantiated and misleading and denied Bellion’s petition. TTB explained that the claims lacked substantiation and that they were misleading as to the “serious health consequences of both moderate and heavy levels of consumption of alcohol beverages containing NTX.” The claims also implied that drinking the beverages would reduce the risk of damage to the liver and to the brain. In short, TTB rejected the idea that NTX-infused vodka was less harmful to a person’s DNA than other vodka.

Bellion submitted to TTB several animal and in vitro studies purportedly supporting the health claims. TTB, in turn, forwarded the full petition along with these studies to FDA for its scientific and medical review of whether the data provided adequate substantiation for the proposed claims. Bellion sued TTB, claiming the government had overstepped its authority by involving FDA in its review of the claims and arguing the restrictions infringed on Bellion’s First and Fifth Amendment rights. The court patiently addressed each of Bellion’s constitutional and APA arguments, which are far too detailed for this blog post, and affirmed TTB’s conclusion that any claims about salutary health effects are misleading, and thus not subject to First Amendment protection.

It may not ever be clear without a FOIA request or congressional inquiry how often FDA is consulted by TTB for its scientific expertise. In this case, FDA’s involvement was significant: FDA reviewed the scientific and medical evidence submitted by Bellion, which included 112 articles or studies; and assessed whether the data adequately substantiated the proposed claims. FDA and TTB took over a year to respond to plaintiffs’ petition. It would be interesting how many competing priorities of FDA were deprioritized or postponed for this project.